The Milwaukee Post

By OWEN ROBINSON While it is not the most exciting topic of discussion, special property tax assess- ments directly affect every property owner – many times to the tune of thousands of dol- lars. There is a movement afoot in the city of Appleton to change how their city handles assessments. Perhaps it is something to con- sider in the city of West Bend. If you are not yet a property owner and have never dealt with a special assessment, they can be painful. Different cities do it dif- ferently, but the basics are the same. The municipality can charge property owners for improvements to city infrastructure that benefits their property. The municipality can choose to charge the property owners all or just a portion of the cost and that cost can be apportioned differently to multiple prop- erty owners. For example, let us say that the city of West Bend builds a new section of street with sewers, lights, water main, sidewalk, etc. that touches six properties and that the new street cost $60,000. The city can choose to charge the entire amount to the property owners evenly at $10,000 each, only charge a fraction to each property owner or choose another parameter by which to divide the cost – like lin- ear feet of property touching the new street. Once the special assessment is enacted and the appeals process is complete, the property owner has two choices. The owner can pay the entire amount upfront or the owner can choose an installment plan that will be charged, including interest, to the property tax bill over the next several years. If the assessment stretches into thou- sands of dollars, many property owners simply cannot afford to pay the lump sum and end up going with the installments. For property owners on fixed incomes, special assessments can be particularly devastat- ing. Special assessments are, in and of them- selves, not a bad thing. While every special assessment can be scrutinized for its neces- sity, cost and the fair allocation of those costs, they operate under the same concept as user fees. Essentially, instead of the municipality paying for infrastructure improvements by spreading the cost over the entire tax levy to all taxpayers, it forces the taxpayers who most benefit from the improvements to pay all or most of the cost for those improvements. Without special assessments, the municipality would have to raise the entire property tax levy or find the money elsewhere to pay for the infrastruc- ture improvements. That is exactly what some residents are pushing in Appleton and the momentum is building. They want the city to halt special assessments and instead spread the cost of all infrastructure improvements to all tax- payers. The rationale is that all taxpayers benefit from a quality city infrastructure. Even if every taxpayer does not drive down a particular street or push their waste down a particular sewer lateral, the infrastruc- ture as a whole benefits the entire commu- nity. Also, because an individual special assessment can run thousands of dollars, it is too great of a burden to an individual tax- payer. Why not have all taxpayers pay a few extra dollars instead of hammering a single property owner for thousands of dollars? Or better yet, why not find a way to keep up the city's infrastructure without special assess- ments or raising the levy? Before one thinks doing away with spe- cial assessments is too far-fetched, consider other taxing authorities that follow the same precept. Our public schools, for example, do not use special property tax assessments to resident taxpayers who more directly bene- fit from the schools. They do not, for exam- ple, charge property owners with children attending the public schools a special assess- ment. And even though many residents only benefit tangentially from the public schools through an educated populace and have never stepped foot in one, they pay the same property tax rate as everyone else to fund them. Again, special assessments are not neces- sarily good or bad. They are a funding mech- anism for building and maintaining public infrastructure just like the general property tax levy is. It is worth considering what is a benefit for an individual taxpayer for which it is sensible for them to bear the full burden and what is truly for the general welfare of the citizenry to be borne by all. (Owen Robinson is a West Bend resident. His column runs frequently in The Post.) May 2, 2014 • Milwaukee County Post • 9 The new line coming out of the Milwaukee establishment is that it is hard to get anything positive done in the city because of suburban obstructionism. This spin showed up in the past two weeks in both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Business Journal. Of course, it can't be ineptitude on the part of Milwaukee officials or the fact that the city's projects are often stunningly stupid (Google Milwaukee Streetcar). Nope, we're stagnat- ing because the greedy rich people in the suburbs won't lift a finger for Milwaukee; so goes the excuse of the month. The argument is being pushed now because of adamant regional opposition to spending one penny of tax money to build a new arena to replace the Bradley Center. Most county boards have passed resolu- tions opposing it and city leaders are espe- cially upset that Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, whose support would be critical, has already ruled out a regional sales tax. (Vos is from Racine County and the last politician from there to support a Milwaukee stadium was thrown out of office.) The only thing the Milwaukee elit- ists have right is that there is no regional support for a tax. But the reason isn't because everybody from West Bend to Kenosha wants the city to rot away. It's because the city never supports anything elsewhere in the region. Milwaukee demands cooperation but never cooper- ates. It is comical to watch Milwaukee insid- ers like Mayor Tom Barrett scream opposi- tion to building a job-producing casino in Kenosha but then turn around and say Racine and Kenosha should build Milwaukee a basketball arena. Years have been lost in desperately needed expansion of the freeway system in southeast Wisconsin because of the opposition from Milwaukee. Milwaukee won't even let the rest of the region use Lake Michigan water. Before New Berlin was allowed to buy water from Milwaukee, the city's former mayor was forced to accept all sorts of city demands including putting up glorified slum housing in New Berlin. Waukesha has essentially been told it will never get Milwaukee water no matter how much beg- ging is done. Milwaukee acts as if all the water in massive Lake Michigan is Milwaukee's personal property. It holds everything from public health to economic expansion hostage with its refusal to allow the region to use regional water. And the city wonders why the region won't tax itself for a Milwaukee arena? It is impossible to name one major proj- ect outside the Milwaukee County line that was developed because city officials pushed for it. So knee-jerk is Milwaukee opposition to anything suburban that the city didn't even want to let private schools outside Milwaukee participate in the school choice program. Some prominent Milwaukeeans want a new tax for not only a basketball arena but for local arts attractions. They cite the need for assistance for the Milwaukee Public Museum, Art Museum, Symphony and the Mitchell Park Domes. All of these are in the city limits. They'd probably throw in a token suburban attraction if they could name one. Franklin recently killed a proposal for a private developed baseball stadium for a low-level minor league franchise. Officials there never even considered seeking Milwaukee support for the facility. Too bad. It would have been hilarious hearing the people who want regional taxes for Milwaukee's basketball arena explain why they were against a suburban baseball sta- dium. * * * All of this demanding of regional money for a Milwaukee project came at the same time the city is preparing to go to court to try to force utility ratepayers from the entire region to pay for Barrett's inane streetcar. The state Public Service Commission last week ruled that the mil- lions of dollars in utility costs caused by the relocation of gas, electric and phone lines to accommodate the streetcar must be paid by the city itself. But Milwaukee officials quickly said they'd challenge the PSC ruling in court. If utilities like We Energies, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have to come up with the money to move underground utility lines away from the streetcar route, the money will come from ratepayers throughout the region. This is par for the Milwaukee course. The city always wants suburban- ites to pay for the city's mass transit follies. Remember the proposed commuter rail line that would run from Milwaukee to Brookfield? They wanted a Regional Transit Authority to pay for that, which is also where the Milwaukee-to-Kenosha high-speed train would have gotten its funding from. Now, Barrett is trying to run a trolley around in a circle and wants to raise electric bills in Muskego to pay for it. And they grumble that the region won't tax itself for a basketball arena? (Mark Belling is the host of a daily WISN radio talk show. His column appears weekly in the Milwaukee Post.) MARK BELLING STANDING UP for MILWAUKEE OPINION It's their way or no way Making public assessments a little less special Milwaukee espouses regionalism as long as it's in city's favor Robinson

• Cover